ORDER : 1. This writ petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder the order passed in Title Suit No.33 of 2012 dated 12.02.2018 by which an application under Order XI Rule 14, 18(2), 19(3) read with Section 151 of C.P.C. for production of document has been rejected, is under challenge. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the suit is for specific performance wherein he has made payment of consideration amount of Rs.3,75,000/-to purchase the land in question which has been accepted by the defendant No.1 and became ready to purchase the same but instead of transferring the land in his favour the same has been sought to be transferred by virtue of written agreement dated 17.03.2001 but the said agreement has not been executed, therefore, the suit has been filed. 3. The petitioner's contention is that the entire consideration amount has been paid through demand draft and the copy of some of the demand draft is in his possession but the copy of some of the demand draft is not in his possession, therefore, he has made an application under the provision of Order XI Rule 14, 18(2), 19(3) read with Section 151 of C.P.C. for production of said document, the same has been rejected. 4. According to the petitioner, the said documents is necessary for proper adjudication of the case since if the copy of the demand draft would be on record, there will be no dispute in adjudicating the dispute with respect to the acceptance of the consideration amount by the defendant No.1. 5. The Court instead of calling the said demand draft, has rejected the same on the ground that it is the onus of the petitioner/plaintiff to prove his own case. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff and gone through the pleadings made in the writ petitioner as also the impugned order wherefrom it is evident that the suit for specific performance has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for execution of the agreement for transfer of the land in question for which, he has paid the consideration amount. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff and gone through the pleadings made in the writ petitioner as also the impugned order wherefrom it is evident that the suit for specific performance has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for execution of the agreement for transfer of the land in question for which, he has paid the consideration amount. 7. According to the petitioner, copy of the demand draft of some of the amount is in his possession but some of the copy of the said demand draft is not available, therefore, an application has been filed before the trial Court invoking its jurisdiction as conferred under Order XI Rule 14, 18(2), 19(3) read with Section 151 of C.P.C. for production of documents. 8. This Court thinks it proper before looking into the legality and proprietary of the order to go through the provision as contained in Order XI Rule 14, 18(2), 19(3) of the C.P.C. 9. So far as Order XI Rule 14 speaks for production of document, it contains a provision that it shall be lawful for the Court, at any time during the pendency of any suit, to order the production by any party thereto, upon oath, of such of the documents in his possession or power, relating to any matter in question in such suit, as the Court shall think right, and the Court may deal with such documents, when produced, in such manner as shall appear just. 10. It is evident from the aforesaid provision that it is upon the court in course of the pendency of the suit to direct any party to bring on record the documents lying in his possession or power, relating to any matter in question. 11. The provision of Rule 18(2) of C.P.C. contains a provision for inspection of documents which reads as follows:- “18(2). Any application to inspect documents, except such as are referred to in the pleadings, particulars or affidavits of the party against whom the application is made or disclosed in his affidavit of documents, shall be founded upon an affidavit showing of what documents inspection is sought, that the party applying is entitled to inspect them, and that they are in the possession or power of the other party. The Court shall not make such order for inspection of such documents when and so far as the Court shall be of opinion that it is not necessary either for disposing fairly of the suit or for saving costs.” 12. The provision of Rule 19(3) of C.P.C. reads as follows:- “19(3). The Court may, on the application of any party to a suit at any time, and whether an affidavit of documents shall or shall not have already been ordered or made, make an order requiring any other party to state by affidavit whether any one or more specific documents, to be specified in the application, is or are, or has or have at any time been, in his possession or power; and, if not then in his possession, when he parted with the same and what has become thereof. Such application shall be made on an affidavit stating that in the belief of the deponent the party against whom the application is made has, or has at some time had, in his possession or power the document or documents specified in the application, and that they relate to the matters in question in the suit, or to some of them.” 13. It is evident from the bare reading of the aforesaid provision that is is up to the court to bring on record certain documents, if relevant, for the just and proper adjudication of the issues. 14. Here in the instant case, the petitioner has sought for a direction by invoking the the jurisdiction conferred by virtue of the provision as contained in Order XI Rule 14 for calling upon the defendant to bring on record the copy of the demand draft, the question herein is that if the petitioner has filed a suit, it is up to the petitioner to prove his case by bringing on record the relevant documents. 15. 15. It is the cardinal principle that the petitioner or the plaintiff is required to prove his case on the basis of pleading supported by the relevant documents but he cannot be allowed to make out a case by taking aid of the Court for calling upon certain documents save and except if the Court thinks it proper to call upon the parties to bring on record the relevant documents, meaning thereby, the discretion lies upon the Court to call upon any of the party to bring on record the relevant documents for just and proper adjudication of the issue. 16. It is evident from the impugned order that in the suit, the defendant have appeared and the plaintiff has filed an amendment in the plaint which was dismissed on 20th August, 2016, therefore, plaintiff has approached this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(C) No.6028 of 2016 and at that juncture, petition has been filed. 17. It is further evident that the plaintiff should have entered into selling suit land and case has been filed for specific performance against the defendant No.1 rather there is no material brought on record by the plaintiff against the defendant No.2 for specific performance. 18. The petition which has been filed by the petitioner under the aforesaid provision seeking for a direction upon the Court to call upon the defendant Nos.1 & 2 to bring on record the copy of the demand draft or any transaction made in pursuance to the said agreement for transfer of the land in question, the Court after taking it into consideration and looking into the pleadings made in the plaint has come to a conclusion that the suit for specific performance has been sought for against defendant No.1 and not against defendant No.2 since the defendant No.1 is the signatory to the said agreement. 19. The Court has further considered the onus of the plaintiff to prove his own case against the defendants. Since there is a pleading of the petitioner that the demand draft was prepared and handed over to the defendant No.1, therefore, onus is upon the petitioner to bring on record relevant documents in support of his claim during hearing of the suit. 20. In view thereof and in the considered view of this Court, the trial Court while rejecting the aforesaid application has not committed error. 21. 20. In view thereof and in the considered view of this Court, the trial Court while rejecting the aforesaid application has not committed error. 21. The writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution which is having narrow scope for interference i.e. if there is error apparent on the face of record but according to the considered view of this court, there is no such error apparent on the face of record rather the Court has rightly passed the order casting onus upon the petitioner to prove his own case by bringing on record such demand draft as well as relevant documents in support of his claim, therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. 22. In view thereof, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.